Joe Biden has moved to correct a “great injustice” by pardoning thousands of US veterans convicted over six decades under a military law that banned gay sex.
The presidential proclamation, which comes during Pride month and an election year, allows LGBTQ+ service members convicted of crimes based solely on their sexual orientation to apply for a certificate of pardon that will help them receive withheld benefits.
…
It grants clemency to service members convicted under Uniform Code of Military Justice article 125 – which criminalised sodomy, including between consenting adults – between 1951 and 2013, when it was rewritten by Congress.
That includes victims of the 1950s “lavender scare”, a witch-hunt in which many LGBTQ+ people employed by the federal government were viewed as security risks amid fears their sexual orientation made them vulnerable to blackmail. Thousands were investigated and fired or denied employment.
We’ve decided your sexuality is scandalous, forcing you to hide it, which makes you at risk of being blackmailed, so we’re charging you with a crime.” Fucking despicable.
While obviously not near the same level of criminalizing someone for part of their core identity, I’ve felt the same way about the US government’s treatment of pot smokers. Can’t get a security clearance if you’ve smoked pot within the past 7 years because it’s blackmail leverage ignoring the fact that it’s only blackmail material when the government considers it verboten
You can 100% get a clearance if you’ve smoked within 7 years of applying for one. Hell, you can get a clearance if you smoked within the last year. You just have to a) disclose the fact, b) be able to show mitigations as to why smoking weed won’t be an issue while you have a clearance, and then c) not do it while you have a clearance. It ends up being not so much about the fact that you smoke weed as it is that you’re not following the law, and that’s the real clearance risk (from their POV). Getting a clearance is really about proving you’re trustworthy to the investigator.
There are agencies, iirc mostly law enforcement, that consider it a strict bar. It also depends on the level of clearance, and how much they need you. An Army private getting a secret clearance to present weather to the general on the daily isn’t getting nearly as much scrutiny as a nuclear physicist. But nuclear physicists willing to work for the government are a finite resource. It’s all clear as mud and the fear of losing your career over some stupid persecution is real.
You’re mixing some things up. Yes, some agencies will have some POLICIES about not wanting to hire personnel with a history of drug abuse/use, but that is separate from the clearance adjudication process.
A secret clearance is a secret clearance, and you’re correct that it’s much simpler to get a basic secret than it is a TS-SCI or to be read into certain programs. But there isn’t a “FBI” secret and an “Army” secret.
There’s no timeline for how long it’s been since you’ve smoked pot, or number of times, or anything. I think a poster said that it’s about whether the investigation finds you trustworthy enough for the level of eligibility they’re investigating you for, and that is correct - and there isn’t a hard and fast rule necessarily.
If you do an investigation and are asked if you’ve ever used any illegal drugs and you say no, but in your criminal record you have a possession charge, that’s bad. You’re obviously lying, and not even being smart about it. If you say you used to smoke trees every day and are blazed right now, that’s bad because you obviously don’t give af about laws and stuff (not my opinion, this is the opinion of the Fed that still thinks it’s illegal). If you say you used to smoke with your friend for a couple months in college a year ago but stopped and think that was probably a dumb decision, that’s not necessarily bad, it all depends on how the interview goes. They’ll ask for the names of who you smoked with and how you got the weed - so they can check if you were hanging out with known cartel members or just some other joe schmoe at UCWhatevs.
At the end of the day it’s all based on context and a ton of factors. They dig a lot deeper and have a much higher standard for more selective clearances or programs, which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone? But it’s all about whether you’re trustworthy to keep certain sensitive information from unauthorized people.
That change requires an act of Congress. They’ve been dragging their heels on it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617
It’s not so much the blackmail with pot, it’s the fact you can’t “follow the rules”. They will give a bye for previous smoking events (before you need the clearance, took a position etc.), it’s smoking with a clearance or NOT telling them that will get you wrapped up.
…it’s blackmail leverage ignoring the fact that it’s only blackmail material when the government considers it verboten…
…it’s smoking with a clearance…
Smoking with a clearance is only possible blackmail material because the government makes it verboten. Their point stands.
Considering that Nixon’s cabinet has openly talked about how they made it a federal offense so that they had justification to arrest the leaders of the war protesters (and the same thing with cocaine and the black community), I’d say it’s of a similar level but a different kind of evil.
